(PC) Lane v. Beach

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVERETTE LANE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00147-JLT-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE; 13 ADDRESSING OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL v. ORDER 14 15 K. BEACH, (Docs. 50, 54, 55)

16 Defendants.

17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Everett Lane asserts K. Beach, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker at Kern Valley State 20 Prison, violated his civil rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to take action after 21 Plaintiff allegedly informed Defendant Beach he was suicidal, had recently swallowed four razor 22 blades, and had an additional razor blade hidden in his possession. Defendant denies these 23 allegations. Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury trial is set to 24 commence in this matter on August 29, 2023. 25 Before the Court for decision are three motions in limine filed by Defendant and one set 26 of motions in limine filed by Plaintiff. (Docs. 50, 54, 55.) In addition, Defendant objects to some 27 aspects of the pretrial order and Plaintiff has provided a list of exhibits that were omitted from his 28 earlier pretrial submissions. The Court finds all these issues suitable for decision on the papers 1 and addresses the matters in this order. 2 II. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 3 A. Legal Standard 4 “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the 5 practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of 6 trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). The Ninth Circuit explained that 7 motions in limine “allow parties to resolve evidentiary disputes ahead of trial, without first having 8 to present potentially prejudicial evidence in front of a jury.” Brodit v. Cabra, 350 F.3d 985, 9 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). 10 Courts disfavor motions in limine seeking to exclude broad categories of evidence. See 11 Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). The Court “is 12 almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence.” 13 Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan. 2007). The Sixth Circuit explained, 14 “[A] better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise [in trial].” 15 Sperberg, 519 F.2d at 712. Nevertheless, motions in limine are “an important tool available to the 16 trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.” 17 Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). 18 “[A] motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence,” 19 C & E Services, Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 (D.D.C. 2008), because that is the 20 province of the jury. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). The 21 Court will bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the 22 evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Jonasson, 115 F. 3d at 440. 23 Moreover, the rulings on the motions in limine made below do not preclude either party 24 from raising the admissibility of the evidence discussed herein, if the evidence adduced at trial 25 demonstrates a change of circumstances that would make the evidence admissible. In this event, 26 the proponent of the evidence SHALL raise the issue outside the presence of the jury. 27 /// 28 /// 1 B. Defendant’s Motions in Limine 2 1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine #1 (Lay Medical Testimony) 3 Defendant’s first motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from providing opinion 4 testimony about “any diagnosis, opinions, inferences, or causation concerning his self-caused 5 wrist injury” or “any opinions or inferences from any medical records or diagnostic studies.” 6 (Doc. 50 at 2.) Defendant anticipates that “Plaintiff may seek to testify, and possibly seek to 7 introduce medical records or other testimony, to show that he sustained a self-caused injury with 8 his wrist after meeting with Defendant Beach for a mental health assessment.” (Id.) It is 9 undisputed that Plaintiff has not sought to designate himself as a medical expert in this matter. 10 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 701, lay witness opinion testimony cannot be “based on 11 scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” “Rule 701 has 12 been used to bar lay witnesses from testifying as to their opinion on causation where such a 13 determination would require the experience of an expert.” Lillie v. ManTech Int’l Corp., Case No. 14 2:17-cv-02538-CAS-SSx, 2018 WL 6323076, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018). As a non-expert 15 witness, Plaintiff is not qualified to offer any expert opinions in this case concerning the cause of 16 any alleged physical injuries, the content of any medical records, or the nature of any medical 17 condition. 18 However, to the extent Plaintiff intends to testify about his injury and how he suffered it in 19 a manner that does not depend on expert opinion, he may do so. See Hovsepian v. State Farm 20 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CV-09-08929 MMM (PLAx), 2011 WL 13213900, at *10 (C.D. Cal. 21 Jan. 12, 2011) (“Courts frequently hold that lay witnesses cannot testify regarding causation 22 where determining the cause of a particular incident or occurrence is beyond common 23 experience.”)).) No lay witness is allowed to usurp the role of the jury by testifying as to an 24 ultimate issue, including as to causation. However, under Rule 701, Plaintiff may testify about 25 what he did, felt, and experienced and everything else within his personal perception, including as 26 to medically related experiences and emotional distress, but not about the conclusions that his 27 doctors reached about his injuries. “Just because a lay witness cannot testify about his opinion as 28 to the causation of the emotional distress does not mean that a plaintiff cannot testify about the 1 surrounding facts which prove a causal link between the alleged wrong and the alleged damage, 2 even without an expert.” Boren v. Harrah’s Ent. Inc., No. 2:08-CV-00215-GMN, 2010 WL 3 4340641, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 26, 2010); Jan. v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., 594 F. App’x 907, 4 910–11 (9th Cir. 2014) (An expert witness is “not required to establish that [plaintiff] experienced 5 mental distress and depression for purposes of noneconomic damages. [Plaintiff] was entitled to 6 prove the latter type of damages by testifying about his own perceptions.”). Thus, for example, if 7 he felt pain or other sensation, this testimony is permitted. However, he cannot testify as to 8 injuries or causal connections that can only be explained by an expert. 9 For the reasons set forth above, this motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff may not 10 testify as to any medical causation or diagnosis, but he may testify as to his actions and related 11 experiences, so long as that testimony is within the realm of common experience. He also may 12 testify about his emotional distress and may relay circumstantial facts to the jury that would 13 support a finding of causation. 14 2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine #2 (Indemnification by State) 15 Defendant next moves to exclude evidence that the State of California may pay any 16 judgment in this case or reimburse Defendant in the event a judgment is rendered against her. 17 (Doc. 50 at 3.) Defendant analogizes the indemnification of Defendant to situations where a party 18 was insured at the time the harm was suffered. Given that the existence of such insurance is 19 inadmissible to prove liability, see Fed. R. Evid. 411, Defendant maintains evidence of 20 indemnification should likewise be inadmissible here. (Doc. 50 at 3.) Other courts in this District 21 have granted similar motions. See Calloway v. Hayward, No. 108CV01896LJOGSAPC, 2017 22 WL 363000, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017) (citing Fed. R. Evid 411 when granting motion in 23 limine to exclude evidence that the state may pay the judgment in a prisoner civil rights case 24 because “ such evidence is inadmissible, irrelevant, and prejudicial to Defendants”); Saenz v. 25 Reeves, No. 1:09-CV-00057-BAM PC, 2013 WL 2481733, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2013) 26 (“Information regarding whether the State or CDCR would pay any verdict or reimburse 27 Defendant for any compensatory damage award is not relevant to Plaintiff's First Amendment 28 retaliation claim or his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. Fed. R. Evid. 401. 1 Even if such information were relevant, it should be excluded because its probative value is 2 substantially outweighed by both a danger of unfair prejudice and a danger of confusing the 3 issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403.”). 4 Plaintiff does not address this motion in limine directly. Instead, he argues that Defendant 5 presented him with a settlement offer, which Plaintiff refused. Plaintiff contends that a jury 6 should be able to hear about that settlement offer and suggests such an offer could amount to an 7 admission of guilt. (Doc. 54 at 3.) However, Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a)(1) expressly 8 prohibits the admission of evidence of settlement negotiations to establish liability. See Fed. R. 9 Evid. 408(a)(1) (“Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either 10 to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior 11 inconsistent statement or a contradiction: (1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, 12 promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or 13 attempting to compromise the claim.”). 14 Defendants’ motion in limine is well supported by the authorities and is GRANTED. 15 Plaintiff’s position as to settlement negotiations, however, is contrary to the Rules of Evidence; 16 he will not be permitted to offer evidence related to settlement offers or negotiations in this case. 17 3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine #3 (Precluding Plaintiff from Referring to 18 Defendant as “Dr. Beach”) 19 Defendant points out, correctly, that Plaintiff has referred to Defendant Beach as “Dr. 20 Beach” at various times throughout this litigation. (Doc. 50 at 4.) Defendant, who is a Licensed 21 Clinical Social Worker, and possesses no medical or other doctoral degree, moves to preclude 22 Plaintiff from referring to her as “Dr. Beach” in the presence of the jury. (Id.) Defendant contends 23 that the erroneous reference will be unfairly prejudicial, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury 24 by, among other things, possibly causing the jury to hold Defendant to a higher standard in the 25 mistaken belief that she is a medical doctor. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff does not oppose this motion in any material way. He “objects to this only because 27 he has always referenced prison mental health clinicians as doctors and it would be more than 28 likely to slip out” that way. (Doc. 54 at 3.) Plaintiff indicates that “[i]f this were to happen, 1 Plaintiff means no harm by it.” (Id.) 2 Defendants are correct that the erroneous reference has the potential to be prejudicial, 3 though the Court finds that a material impact upon the jury is unlikely under the circumstances. 4 This motion in limine is nonetheless GRANTED and Plaintiff is instructed to use best efforts to 5 avoid using that reference. To the extent Plaintiff accidentally references Defendant as a “doctor” 6 in passing, the Court is confident that the issue can be addressed before any prejudice results. 7 C. Plaintiff’s Remaining Objections to Proposed Motions in Limine 8 Plaintiff filed a document on July 31, 2023 that appears to address a draft list of motions 9 in limine Defendant presented to Plaintiff for purposes of meet and confer. Some of these issues 10 were encompassed within the Defense motions discussed above, but other issues appear not to 11 have been included in the Defense motions. For example, Plaintiff objects to any attempt by 12 Defendant to “exclude any witnesses not previously identified in the parties’ pre-trial statements.” 13 (Doc. 54 at 1.) Defendant did not file a motion in limine on that subject. Moreover, the applicable 14 standard was set forth in the tentative pretrial order as follows: 15 NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE 16 PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST 17 INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10). 18 *** 19 The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose, including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the 20 following criteria: 21 a. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably 22 anticipated atthe pretrial conference, or 23 b. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph b, below. 24 Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to 25 present at trial, the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted witnesses so the 26 court may consider whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless: 27 c. The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to 28 the discovery cutoff; 1 d. The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; 2 e. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; 3 and 4 f. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony was provided to opposing parties 5 6 (Doc. 48 at 10–11.) 7 Similarly, Defendant brought no formal motion in limine “[t]o exclude documents not 8 previously identified in the parties’ pretrial statement[s].” (See Doc. 54 at 2.) Again, the standard 9 applicable to that issue is set forth in the tentative pretrial order. (Doc. 48 at 12–13.) The Court 10 will take no further action on these issues at this time. 11 D. Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine 12 Though not labeled as such, Plaintiff appears to have presented two motions in limine of 13 his own. (Doc. 55.) He objects specifically to the admission of the following documents: (1) the 14 abstract of judgment related to the criminal charges for which he has been incarcerated; and 15 (2) any other mental health documents and/or records outside the events that transpired on March 16 20, 2019 and which are the basis for this case. (Id.) 17 1. Criminal Abstract of Judgment 18 Regarding the abstract of judgment, the Defense does not appear to be seeking to offer 19 any such information as direct evidence in its case in chief but has reserved the right to reference 20 evidence of Plaintiff’s conviction for impeachment purposes, for example when the Defendant 21 cross-examines Plaintiff, assuming Plaintiff testifies in this matter. (Doc. 48 at 10.) 22 The use of Plaintiff’s prior criminal conviction(s) for impeachment purposes is governed 23 by Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Rule 609 provides that a testifying witness’s character for 24 truthfulness may be attacked by evidence of a criminal conviction for a crime that is punishable 25 by imprisonment for more than one year and for any crime proving a dishonest act or false 26 statement. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a). The rule limits the use of convictions where it has been more 27 than 10 years since the conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Fed. R. 28 Evid. 609(b). “[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, evidence of a prior conviction admitted for 1 impeachment purposes may not include collateral details and circumstances attendant upon the 2 conviction.” United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 3 and citation omitted). “Generally, only the prior conviction, its general nature, and punishment of 4 felony range are fair game for testing the [witness's] credibility.” United States v. Osazuwa, 564 5 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, the Court 6 presumes Defendants will only seek to introduce prior felony convictions consistent with Rule 7 609, if at all. If Plaintiff chooses to testify at trial, subject to Rule 403, only prior felony 8 convictions less than ten years old are admissible for impeachment purposes. Therefore, to the 9 extent Plaintiff seeks to exclude, pursuant to Rule 609, all of Plaintiff’s criminal history, the 10 motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 11 2. Mental Health Records 12 It is unclear to the Court exactly what timeframe will be covered by the mental health 13 records the Defense plans to offer. It is also unclear at this time whether mental health from dates 14 other than March 20, 2019 will be relevant in this case, or what might be contained therein that 15 could be prejudicial. The Court will therefore RESERVE this issue for trial. The Defense is 16 instructed to bring to the Court’s attention any potential disputes over such records and to do so 17 outside the presence of the jury. 18 E. Objections to Pretrial Order 19 1. Defendant’s Request to Revise the Joint Neutral Statement 20 Defendant requests that the joint neutral statement set forth in the tentative pretrial order 21 be revised to clarify (1) that Defendant Beach is not a medical doctor; and (2) explain the Defense 22 position on liability. Plaintiff did not respond to this request and the Court finds it to be 23 reasonable and will adopt the Defendant’s revised proposed joint neutral: 24 Plaintiff alleges that while he was state prisoner, he visited licensed social worker Beach at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that 25 at that time, he informed Ms. Beach that (1) he had recently swallowed four razor blades and (2) he had an additional razor blade 26 hidden in his possession and intended to use it to harm himself. Plaintiff claims he informed Ms. Beach that he was suicidal because 27 he recently lost a family member. The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Beach did not take any action, such as placing him in a mental health 28 crisis bed, to prevent him from harming himself with the hidden razor 1 blade. Plaintiff claims that he later harmed himself with the hidden razor blade and that his self-inflicted wounds later required surgery. 2 Based upon these acts, Plaintiff asserts Ms. Beach failed to provide him adequate medical care as required by the Eighth Amendment to 3 the United States Constitution. 4 Ms. Beach alleges that Plaintiff never informed her that he had a razor in his possession or intended to use it on himself. Further, Ms. 5 Beach alleges that per the prison’s policies and procedures she performed a Suicide Risk and Self-Harm Assessment of Plaintiff and 6 made a medical determination that he did not qualify for a mental health crisis bed. 7 2. Plaintiff’s Exhibit List 8 In advance of the pretrial conference, Plaintiff attached a number of exhibits to his pretrial 9 conference statement, which the Court interpreted as the exhibits he intends to offer at trial. (See 10 Doc. 48 at 13.) The tentative pretrial order provided the parties with fourteen days to object to its 11 content. Within that timeframe, Plaintiff filed a hand-written exhibit list. (See Doc. 54 at 4.) It 12 lists the following exhibits: 13 (1) Inmate Patient Health Care 602 14 (2) Exhausted Remedies 602 15 (3) Operation and Procedure Performance Information 16 (4) Patient Discharge Instructions After Surgery for Sustained Nerve Damage 17 (5) Conditions of Inmate Patient Admission 18 (6) Patient Medical Hospital Certification 19 (7) Inmate Plaintiff ADR Motion 20 (8) [Reference to Problem Printing Obituary] 21 (9) Obituary of Robert Earl Meekins 22 (10) Defendant Mental Health Report (with blacked out ink that can still be read) 23 Defendant has not objected to the addition of these exhibits to the list already contained in 24 the tentative pretrial order at pages 13 through 14. Accordingly, these exhibits will be deemed 25 included in this list. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that he must be prepared to provide and 26 identify and clearly number a complete set of exhibits from the documents on these lists. In 27 addition, the disclosure of a document in the pretrial order does not necessarily mean they may be 28 1 admitted trial. 2 F. Request for Counsel 3 The Plaintiff has repeatedly requested appointment of counsel in this case. The magistrate 4 judge denied one such request on June 12, 2023. (Doc. 44.) On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed yet 5 another motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 53.) On August 2, 2023, the magistrate judge denied 6 that motion. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff also requests counsel in the documents addressed in this order. 7 (See Doc. 55 at 3.) To the extent that any of Plaintiffs filings could be construed as a request for 8 district judge review of the magistrate judge’s rulings on that issue, that request is DENIED. The 9 magistrate judge’s ruling is legally correct and reasonable. This case, though it touches upon 10 issues related to mental health, is not overly complex and the undersigned does not find that this 11 is the kind of exceptional prisoner civil rights case in which appointed counsel is appropriate. 12 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 13 For the reasons set forth above: 14 (1) Defendant’s first motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from offering expert medical 15 opinion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth above. 16 (2) Defendant’s second motion in limine to preclude evidence that Defendant may be 17 indemnified by the State is GRANTED. Relatedly, Plaintiff may present evidence 18 pertaining to settlement negotiations, offers, or responses to such offers. 19 (3) Defendant’s third motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from referencing Defendant as 20 “Doctor Beach” is GRANTED. 21 (4) Plaintiff’s first motion in limine to preclude reference to his prior criminal convictions 22 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth above. 23 (5) Plaintiff’s second motion in limine to preclude reference of his mental health records 24 that predate the events at issue in this case is RESERVED for decision on a more 25 complete record. 26 (6) Defendant’s request to revise the tentative pretrial order with a modified joint neutral 27 statement is GRANTED as set forth above. 28 (7) Plaintiff’s request to add exhibits to those listed in the pretrial order is GRANTED as 1 set forth above. 2 (8) To the extent Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s denial(s) 3 of his motion(s) for appointment of counsel, any such motion for reconsideration is 4 DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ August 11, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11